Bender

Do you mean you have a compulsive disorder that you cannot write a number without adding it in brackets? Otherwise, I don't understand what you are trying to imply here.

I'm glad we agree. My entire point is that there is no significant difference between our brain and a computer. binary=two states. Each neuron can be considered in one of two states: "spiking" or "not spiking". Excessive dots and suggestive language (HUH, DUH...) do not contribute to the readability. Perhaps it helps seeking attention, but not the kind of attention you want (still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not simply trolling). About the numbers: could you at least explain what the thing with the brackets is?

I don't know CST. Just one remark for the resistor values: it is not the resistivity that changes, but the surface area. At first glance replacing a single resistor with four resistors of one fourth the resistance should work, at least in the principal directions. I don't know how accurate the results will be in a random direction.

What is the difference with a human if the output is functionally similar? What is the difference between a human brain making an error and a computer making an error? The error in both cases is the result of its programming. A human brain can also be considered binary: it either spikes, or it doesn't. I will ask again in this thread: please use proper sentences like everybody else and cut the excessive dots and suggestive language.

The spirals originate from the fibonacci series. This video (and the sequels) explains it all. In short: it has to do with the mathematically optimal way for plants to arrange branches, leafs or scales.

I think it is the general pro-choice consensus that contraception is preferably to abortion, even if sometimes the motivation is purely limiting the psychological and physical impact. However, contraception does not always work and is not always used properly; people can be impulsive and make mistakes; and women get raped or manipulated into unsafe sex.

What tools do you want: This guy singlehandedly lifts a 10 000 kg slab of stone with no more than some wood and weights. Generally, the Egyptians used copper tools, with aren't very efficient on their own, but combined with abrasives and hard labour, it works. Here are some examples. They could also have used thermal shock to weaken or crack the stone, and you don't need any tools for that, only fire and water.

So, you are a psychoanalyst and able to unravel my id from the subtext of my posts? Just curious: earlier you mentioned an aversion towards Freud. Why then do you use the exact same methods as Freud to come to a surprisingly similar conclusion (we are controlled by our subconsciousness)? I didn't mention your first commentary for the same reason I don't care about Freud's stories. I have to agree with Eise on the excessive use of dots (and HUH's and all the interruptions, etc...). Please use proper sentences like everybody else. I also think most people know you are referring to the number 2 when you write "two".

Why do you think there is a need for it? source How could this system reach that accuracy?

No, that's why I don't.

Congratulations, that second commentary actually has two references, although the first seems to be malfunctioning. You are right that skimming over the second commentary confused me. The message is trivial, but with invented words added to it. You remind me somewhat of how Aristotle thought up his theories on mechanics. Millennia later, people like Galileo and Newton decided to do experiments and see what really happened and guess what: Aristotle's theories where completely wrong. But you don't have to take my word for it. Of course, I'll excuse Aristotle given he lived in a time long before the scientific method was developed.

I'm confused, first you say that "I can't", and then you say that I can make the output data to appear in error, which functionally comes down to "I can". If we observe only the output of humans making errors or computers making errors, what's the difference? Is there any reason to assume fundamentally different processes are going on inside? I guess it would also be possible to design faulty hardware, but why bother if I can simply program the desired output?

The surface of the roundabout will go up and down, but the centre of gravity of the entire system wouldn't. If you change the weight distribution in the wheels is such a way that the unbalance is always at the same point, the roundabout wouldn't even do that. Or, in other words: conservation of momentum.

Why would this be any different from your thread about "New non propellant thruster idea", where I already explained why it does not work. To put it another way: if the wheels exert an upwards force on the roundabout, the roundabout exerts an equal and opposite force on the wheels. When you look at the total system, these forces cancel each other out.

The harder it is to travel to a region of exploitation, the more facilities you need locally, and the closer you need to get to actual colonisation. I'm not saying it is going to happen soon, but given the human tendency towards exploration and colonisation, it is bound to happen at some point. I don't think we even need rational reasons. 200 000 people spontaneously applied to go to Mars as it is. Even if no government or company wants to do it, our increasing productivity will reach a point where those people can pay for it themselves or do a crowdfunding for the whole operation.

The sum will not appear twice as bright, though, since our eyes do not observe brightness in a linear way.

I assume the ice is at melting point, keeping the box at 0°C, but I'm not sure.

It deals with just about anything you want. It is also very expensive (like Matlab). I only have experience with modelling magnetic fields with it. If you want open source: I have heard very good things about Elmer, but I have never used it. From a brief look years ago, I had the impression that it is slightly harder to get started with it. Do you have any experience with finite element modelling? A warning: do not take lightly to getting into it, as getting decent results is not straightforward. Even results that look good can be rubbish.

btw, I appear to have made some hasty errors (thanks to studiot for pointing them out): it is obviously not the "useful" energy that is divided in two parts, but the "total" energy. Technically, the entropy can also remain constant, but in dynamic systems, it typically doesn't. I wouldn't call entropy a "driving force", but the idea is correct: nature favours reactions that minimise the potential energy and as a result increase the "thermal" energy, which is an increase in entropy.

No. I have written an m-file for structural mechanics problems, but that was mainly for didactic purposes. Of course, you could also use an actual finite element program, such as Comsol or NX, if you have access to such. Probably a lot easier to get into.

There is absolutely no reason to actually live on Antarctica, a base is all you need for any exploitation or study you want. It cannot even serve as backup in case something happens to Earth.

Pro-choice: religious people have no business oppressing their opinions on others. As a side note, how come there seems to be a correlation between "pro-life" and "favouring death penalty"? Seems contradictory to me. (I seriously dislike the term "pro-life", btw, as it suggests the other side is "counter-life"; "pro-choice" vs "counter-choice" would cover the issue much more accurately, since I also consider myself to be "pro-life") I feel the argument of "they could have been great people" needs proper addressing: letting an unwanted or handicapped child be born is a great burden on the mother and she might decide not to get another child afterwards. That potential life is smothered before it is even conceived, and some of those would certainly have become great people, if only the mother had aborted the previous fetus. The line is, in my eyes, not important. I think putting it after birth would be a bad idea, because of the psychological implications of killing a baby to everyone involved. You simply need to make it late enough to be able detect possible defects and to give the parents time to consider the options. Finally on a religious note: if a fetus is so precious, why has God killed such a large amount of them before birth. If you also take into account the 43% child mortality rate for most of human history, God sure killed a lot of precious, innocent and potentially glorious lives; more than he allowed to live even.

We have already done that.

When the temperature reaches more than 4000 K, the graphite will sublimate. Carbon is the element with the highest melting point. The sublimation point in vacuum is obviously a bit lower.

Those are tiny droplets of highly diluted pee, equally harmless as the puddles of pee that fall on the seat directly, but less disgusting and quicker to clean off.